Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies

On 4/17/24 8:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/17/2024 5:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/17/24 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/17/2024 3:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 04/17/2024 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>
*I will paraphrase his quote using the simplest terms*
>
Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that
there is something wrong with a formal system that cannot correctly
determine whether X is true or false.
>
>

>
I like to read it more as Mirimanoff and the extra-ordinary.
>
In the early 20'th century, Mirimanoff was very influential in
what became set theory.  He was very well-known in the small circle
that is the usual introduction, and should be more, today.
>
Regularity, a usual ruliality, as Well-Foundedness, has a
delicate interplay and contraposition with Well-Orderedness,
both regular and rulial, yet in the infinite, that the
antinomies sort of make for that for arithmetic, that
both increment is an operator, and division is an operator,
and while they join as they come together in the field,
in the modular, they represent yet opposite concerns.
>
So, Mirimanoff's extra-ordinary, is another way to look
at Goedel's incompleteness, that the truths about the
objects, i.e. their proofs or models, do have an
extra-ordinary existence, arising from the resolution
of what would otherwise be the contradiction, the paradox,
making for why Goedel's result is as well that there
_is_ an extra-ordinary infinity, plainly courtesy the mind,
and simple ponderance of alternatives in quantifiers
and the basis of fundamental logic.
>
So, it's not "wrong", instead, it's "better".
>
I like to think of it this way as I am entirely pleased
about it and it very well follows from what I've studied
of the development of the canon of logic as it was and is,
and, will be.
>
>
Warm regards, E.S., bonjour,
>
>

>
I am interested in foundations of logic only so that that I can derive
the generic notion of correct reasoning for the purpose of practical
application in daily life.
>
For example the claim that election fraud changed the outcome of the
2020 presidential election could be understood as untrue as if it was
an error in arithmetic.

>
No, the Truth or Falsehood of that statement would be based on looking at the ACTUAL OBSERVATION of how much "fraud" could be shown to exist, that isn't something determined by "analytical logic" but by forensic investigation, by OBSERVATION. (just the opposite of what you try to claim).
>

 Although that is correct the problem is that 45% of the electorate
do not understand that is correct.

And thus, your arguement does nothing to fix the actual problem.

 When we have a formal system that can explain how and why that is
correct in a quadrillion different ways at every language and
education level, responding to every social media post in real time
relentlessly then we will have the resources required.

Except that the key isn't what a formal system can show, as the key is the basic evidence, that would need to be the axioms of the formal system.

 Currently most of the experts seems to agree that True(L, x)
cannot possibly be consistently and coherently defined thus
there is no objectively discernible difference between verified
facts and dangerous lies.

Nope. That is just a stupid lie.
True(L, x) as a predicate of logic can not be defined.
That does NOT say we can not objectived define what is true and what is false, it says that there exist a few (and generally unusual) statements that we csn not determine if they meet the definition of True or False.
The PROPERTY of Truth has a firm definition, what can't be defined is the PREDICATE.
Your stupidity that can't understand the difference just illustrates the problem.
You yourelf beleive your own lies and refuse to look at the actual truth, just like the people you complain about.
YOU prove the difficulty of the problem, by being the poster child of it.

 

>
Only because humans have a very terribly abysmal understanding of
the notion of truth is propaganda based on the Nazi model possible.

>
No, it is based on people beleiving propaganda over facts.
>

>
The Tarski Undefinability theorem seems to support Nazi propaganda
in that it seems to cause all of the world's best experts to uniformly
agree that no one can ever possibly accurately specify exactly what
True(L,x) really is.

>
>
Nope, but YOUR claim would be more of a support for that then his.
>
>

>
If we cannot ever accurately know what truth is then we can never
consistently correctly divide truth from dangerous lies. This is
currently having horrific consequences.

>
But that isn't what Tarsli said, but your claim is exactly what the people you try to decry use.
>
Your logic is based on LYING, so it actually PROMOTES the lies that you claim to be fighting.
>
YOUR ignoring of the actual facts presented to you validates the ignoring of the facts by those that you claim to be fighting.
>
>

>

-- https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
>

>

>